n order to have 2- and 3-player games start with 14 regions, presuming no changes to the current scheme of 3x3 starting regions, the total number of regions in the pool would have to be between 33 and 35 inclusive (yielding 11 regions to add to the 3 regions in a starting position). This would require 8 to 10 regions designated to start neutral.

So, choosing 8 or 9 neutrals would give the starts that mattattam proposes.

An entirely different approach to our problems might be to simply make all the cities start as neutral 2's. No one can drop a road bonus, or any other bonus, apart from the Islands. Divide the non-city islands with a set of starting positions, and the drops should be much more fair.

What I need to know is how would this effect 6-8 player games? Would the amount of territories players receive in those games be reduced do to these changes?

With 52 regions and 8 or 9 neutrals, you have 43 or 44 regions to divide among the players.

With 44, in 4-player, each gets 11; in 5-, each gets 8, and the extra 4 become neutral as well; in 6-, each gets 7, and the extra 2 become neutral; in 7-, each gets 6, and the extra 2 become neutrals; and in 8-, each gets 5, and the extra 4 become neutrals.

With 43, in 4-player, each gets 10, with 3 extra neutrals; in 5-, each gets 8, and the extra 3 become neutral as well; in 6-, each gets 7, and the extra 1 becomes neutral; in 7-, each gets 6, and the extra 1 becomes neutral; and in 8-, each gets 5, and the extra 3 become neutrals.

With all cities neutral (twelve, I think), we have 40 in the pool: in 2-player games, each gets 13, with 14 extra neutrals; in 3-, each gets 13, plus 1 extra neutral; in 4-, each gets 10, no extras; in 5-, each gets 8, no extras; in 6-, each gets 6, with 4 extra neutrals; in 7-, each gets 5, plus 5 extra neutrals; in 8-, each gets 5, no extras.

Off hand, I cannot think of an easy way to make those 8 or 9 regions neutral without fixing their locations. I outlined the numbers to meet your proposal, but personally, I would rather go with the neutral cities. It makes the players work for the privilege of using the roads to scoot across the map.

Play around with the bonus spreadsheet a bitand see if there is some combination of neutral starts, or larger starting position groups that help. It might be that by ADDING terrs to the starting group, you can increase the number of dropped territories to 19 or 20 for 1v1 games (which is better than 18)

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

Play around with the bonus spreadsheet a bitand see if there is some combination of neutral starts, or larger starting position groups that help. It might be that by ADDING terrs to the starting group, you can increase the number of dropped territories to 19 or 20 for 1v1 games (which is better than 18)

19 or 20 is just as bad and harder to do since you have to add territories.

Ender - I definitely agree that making a lot of the cities neutral would be a good idea.

To through a possibility out there you could make these 8 territories neutral:7 cities-Northern frontier DenmarnArleusIfnalSouth LyaliaHellangarDalmus

Last 1 is Sarle. This would help by taking way the possibility of dropping the green bonus Itherenia and would keep the southeast part of the map open.

Play around with the bonus spreadsheet a bitand see if there is some combination of neutral starts, or larger starting position groups that help. It might be that by ADDING terrs to the starting group, you can increase the number of dropped territories to 19 or 20 for 1v1 games (which is better than 18)

19 or 20 is just as bad and harder to do since you have to add territories.

No, you've misunderstood my point. By adding territories to the starting position groups (not to the map itself), you reduce the number of neutrals dropped in 1v1 games. This is what has created the 18 terr issue in the first place.

You're also incorrect in stating that 19 or 20 are just as bad - either option means that the first player has to take more than one terr to reduce the second players deployment, and reduces the advantage of going first.

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

MrBenn wrote:No, you've misunderstood my point. By adding territories to the starting position groups (not to the map itself), you reduce the number of neutrals dropped in 1v1 games. This is what has created the 18 terr issue in the first place.

You're also incorrect in stating that 19 or 20 are just as bad - either option means that the first player has to take more than one terr to reduce the second players deployment, and reduces the advantage of going first.

I see your point on adding territories to the starting group and not on the map itself. Understood

For the starting positions being bumped to 19-20 I see it as a slight improvement in the wrong direction, lol. It does make it harder to drop your oponnents territories to 17 giving them one less to deploy but what about dropping a bonus? Having even more territories in 2-4 player game types is especially bad for this map due to how many bonus' a player can drop and only creates a greater 1st turn advantage.

Play around with the bonus spreadsheet a bitand see if there is some combination of neutral starts, or larger starting position groups that help. It might be that by ADDING terrs to the starting group, you can increase the number of dropped territories to 19 or 20 for 1v1 games (which is better than 18)

Thanks for the upgrade. This sheet is more powerful than the last, and I like the red highlight on bad numbers of dropped territories like 18. Someday, I hope to create a tool that goes a step beyond this, which analyzes an XML file, firstly, to extract the numbers you need for this sheet, and secondly, to recognize the actual interactions between the regions in the starting positions and the zones which provide bonuses. That way, there would be no need to panic about the probability of dropping a 3-region zone on a given map if all such zones were split by starting positions.

Play around with the bonus spreadsheet a bitand see if there is some combination of neutral starts, or larger starting position groups that help. It might be that by ADDING terrs to the starting group, you can increase the number of dropped territories to 19 or 20 for 1v1 games (which is better than 18)

Thanks for the upgrade. This sheet is more powerful than the last, and I like the red highlight on bad numbers of dropped territories like 18. Someday, I hope to create a tool that goes a step beyond this, which analyzes an XML file, firstly, to extract the numbers you need for this sheet, and secondly, to recognize the actual interactions between the regions in the starting positions and the zones which provide bonuses. That way, there would be no need to panic about the probability of dropping a 3-region zone on a given map if all such zones were split by starting positions.

So does this mean that will re-arrange the starting positions rather than add neutrals? because I was thinking that the neutrals wouldn't be the best solution after all any way. Especially since it didn't do anything to prevent people from dropping the Island bonus.

Play around with the bonus spreadsheet a bitand see if there is some combination of neutral starts, or larger starting position groups that help. It might be that by ADDING terrs to the starting group, you can increase the number of dropped territories to 19 or 20 for 1v1 games (which is better than 18)

Thanks for the upgrade. This sheet is more powerful than the last, and I like the red highlight on bad numbers of dropped territories like 18. Someday, I hope to create a tool that goes a step beyond this, which analyzes an XML file, firstly, to extract the numbers you need for this sheet, and secondly, to recognize the actual interactions between the regions in the starting positions and the zones which provide bonuses. That way, there would be no need to panic about the probability of dropping a 3-region zone on a given map if all such zones were split by starting positions.

So does this mean that will re-arrange the starting positions rather than add neutrals? because I was thinking that the neutrals wouldn't be the best solution after all any way. Especially since it didn't do anything to prevent people from dropping the Island bonus.

Fooling with MrBenn's new calculator tells me that if we make the starting positions 3 groups of 5, 6, or 7 regions each, then in 2-player games, each player starts with 19 regions, which is a better number. We would have to go to 8, 9 or 10 regions to get to 20 regions per player in a 2-player game. That seems unnecessarily restrictive. We would be well advised to use those extra regions to break up the Islands bonus and possibly the 4-region bonuses.

MrBenn, I am a little bothered by the fact that the probabilities of dropping various bonuses in games of 4 or more players changes with changes to the number of regions per starting position when we are only defining 3 starting positions. Also, the probability of ANY player receiving a bonus is only calculated for those game sizes where the starting positions are used, and I don't understand the calculation being used.

Fooling with MrBenn's new calculator tells me that if we make the starting positions 3 groups of 5, 6, or 7 regions each, then in 2-player games, each player starts with 19 regions, which is a better number. We would have to go to 8, 9 or 10 regions to get to 20 regions per player in a 2-player game. That seems unnecessarily restrictive. We would be well advised to use those extra regions to break up the Islands bonus and possibly the 4-region bonuses.

MrBenn, I am a little bothered by the fact that the probabilities of dropping various bonuses in games of 4 or more players changes with changes to the number of regions per starting position when we are only defining 3 starting positions. Also, the probability of ANY player receiving a bonus is only calculated for those game sizes where the starting positions are used, and I don't understand the calculation being used.[/quote]I've updated the spreadsheet (same url link as above) - I'd obviously moved cells around while I was updating it, which effected the calculations in question. The percentage that A specific player drops a bonus is the one which has been calculated to a fine degree of accuracy; this is the probability that the first player starts with a bonus, or if you play a game it it the probability YOU will start with a bonus. The cruder ANY player percentage is a simple multiplier, which slightly over-calculates the probability that somebody will drop the specific bonus (which is why there are certain combinations that give you a percentage greater than 100%).

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

Hi,I'm playing this map in game 7809557. Until one minute ago I was holding the road Ifnal - South Lylia but was not receiving the bonus. I don't know how to prove it now but I thought it was maybe I bug that should be looked into. Wish I had noticed it sooner.Cheers, rob

RobbieDub wrote:Hi,I'm playing this map in game 7809557. Until one minute ago I was holding the road Ifnal - South Lylia but was not receiving the bonus. I don't know how to prove it now but I thought it was maybe I bug that should be looked into. Wish I had noticed it sooner.Cheers, rob

Were you holding just the cities or the cities with all the territories in between? because you need both.

Play around with the bonus spreadsheet a bitand see if there is some combination of neutral starts, or larger starting position groups that help. It might be that by ADDING terrs to the starting group, you can increase the number of dropped territories to 19 or 20 for 1v1 games (which is better than 18)

Thanks for the upgrade. This sheet is more powerful than the last, and I like the red highlight on bad numbers of dropped territories like 18. Someday, I hope to create a tool that goes a step beyond this, which analyzes an XML file, firstly, to extract the numbers you need for this sheet, and secondly, to recognize the actual interactions between the regions in the starting positions and the zones which provide bonuses. That way, there would be no need to panic about the probability of dropping a 3-region zone on a given map if all such zones were split by starting positions.

So does this mean that will re-arrange the starting positions rather than add neutrals? because I was thinking that the neutrals wouldn't be the best solution after all any way. Especially since it didn't do anything to prevent people from dropping the Island bonus.

Fooling with MrBenn's new calculator tells me that if we make the starting positions 3 groups of 5, 6, or 7 regions each, then in 2-player games, each player starts with 19 regions, which is a better number. We would have to go to 8, 9 or 10 regions to get to 20 regions per player in a 2-player game. That seems unnecessarily restrictive. We would be well advised to use those extra regions to break up the Islands bonus and possibly the 4-region bonuses.

Well, I was waiting for TBK to make a suggestion, since up to this point, with regard to XML, I have been more of a secretary than a designer. However, I did come up with my own solution, using 5 starting positions consisting of 4 regions each, which I present below.

A flaw in MrBenn's plan that I feel I must point out is that it greatly favours whoever gets the third starting position with several regions in the road zones: 1 of 3 in the Chunjaris-Theraland road, 2 of 4 in the Hellengar-Theraland road, and 2 of 5 in the Ifnal-South Lyalia road. I believe I have achieved a better balance across the road zones.

To help evaluate these alternatives, I thought it would be a good idea to show everyone MrBenn's bonus probability spreadsheet for each setup: what we have now, what MrBenn suggests, and what I propose.

Well, I was waiting for TBK to make a suggestion, since up to this point, with regard to XML, I have been more of a secretary than a designer. However, I did come up with my own solution, using 5 starting positions consisting of 4 regions each, which I present below.

A flaw in MrBenn's plan that I feel I must point out is that it greatly favours whoever gets the third starting position with several regions in the road zones: 1 of 3 in the Chunjaris-Theraland road, 2 of 4 in the Hellengar-Theraland road, and 2 of 5 in the Ifnal-South Lyalia road. I believe I have achieved a better balance across the road zones.

To help evaluate these alternatives, I thought it would be a good idea to show everyone MrBenn's bonus probability spreadsheet for each setup: what we have now, what MrBenn suggests, and what I propose.

I like the map - just a quick note that it's shown as Aliskar on the map but Aliskar Plains in the dropdowns (sorry if this has already been pointed out, I'm not going to wade through 35 pages to check though )